You gotta say this about Tim Tebow: The dude doesn't mind being scrutinized. You'd think that if there were more to learn about the former star Florida quarterback -- from his NFL-suspect arm to his proselytizing charm -- than what we have learned in the last four years, it would need to come from the CIA.

But apparently we're getting a Super Bowl TV ad that takes us all the way back to -- cherubim and seraphim here! -- the start of the two-time BCS championship quarterback's life!

Like, literally.

Not sure if a manger is involved, or sonograms, but Tebow and his mother Pam are reportedly going to speak in the commerical -- made by the conservative Christian group, Focus on Family -- about how doctors had recommended that Pam, who was ill during part of her pregnancy with her fifth child, have an abortion. Had she done that, well, we'd have a different 2007 Heisman Trophy winner, for one thing.

Numerous women's rights groups have protested CBS' apparent decision to run the 30-second ad -- we're talking a $2.5 million to $2.8million price tag for the half-minute -- because of its religion-based, anti-abortion, thus-political message.

[...]

But in a techno world that gives us Viagra ads, rotting CSI cadavers and Jersey Shore morons around the clock, it seems we could survive this reportedly (by Tebow himself, anyway) tame, if impassioned nonsecular statement about a real-world issue most of us would rather keep private. First Amendment considerations alone tell me that flipping the dial would be better for upset citizens than censorship.

Yet there do need to be rules in this world, ones of enlightenment and compassion and reason and respect for others, even if they're rules that are not written in stone and enforced by government agencies. And I would start with this one: religion should not be part of sport.

Period.

I won't even begin with the ceaseless statements by athletes that God (a) wanted them to win; (b) decided they should lose; (c) healed their injuries; (d) told them it was OK to knock the snot out of the enemy ball carrier; (e) left them just before they got in that drunken bar brawl.

[...]

Studies have shown that we transform our God, whatever religion we espouse, into a deity with philosophical and moral teachings much like the ones we already hold. God's like me, in other words. And the general assumption in the United States is that God is part of our realm and some kind of Christian, likely a rather conservative Christian. We do have the command ''In God We Trust'' on our money, which, one supposes, is better than Ben Bernanke.

But what if Tebow's procession of biblical verse numbers on his eye patches -- guaranteed instant and massive Google hits, by the way -- were verses from the Koran instead?

What if they said, ''Believe in Morman''? ''Scientology Saves''? ''There Is No God''?

Or think of this: ''Death to Infidels.''

That is certainly not what people who love Tebow's endless God-praising had in mind. Yet this is an open and multifaith society, and if one religion is allowed, others will be, must always be.

How did Tebow's college slogans get out there anyway? The NCAA rule book states that nothing but ''a player's number; a player's name; NCAA Football logo; memorial recognition; the American flag; or institution, conference or game identification ... are permitted on a player's person or tape.'' Is it possible Tebow was cut some slack because people like him and nobody wanted to offend the Christian right? Or that the ''powers that be'' agreed with him?

A quarter of the world's population is Muslim, and if our global terrorism battle against zealots is seen solely as Christians vs. Islam, we would do well to remember that there are Jews, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus and yes, Muslims in the American armed forces, and that as All-American a town as Dearborn, Mich., has 10 mosques, and its public schools close for Muslim holidays.

Somehow we've gotten to the point where big-time sport is overwhelmed by Baseball Chapel, Athletes in Action, Christian ministries, God squads and Bible-thumpers everywhere.

I wonder if that bothers Tebow at all. No, of course it doesn't.

But I wonder how he'd feel if he scored a touchdown before a huge crowd, under the beckoning arms of ''Touchdown Muhammad''?

Dissing Mother Teresa

She was known for her humanitarian work. Provide aid and comfort where others fear to tread. Among lepers. Among poor, sick and dying in one of the most desperate human environments on Earth.

It wasn't her religion that made her well known. It was her good works. And her works brought attention to her religion. She didn't care about the religion of the people whom she tended. She cared for them regardless. So this argument is silly. It would then logically follow we need to be rid of Christmas stamps as well.

Maybe some folks need to watch a little more City of Joy and a little less Desperate Housewives.

An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the "darker side" of Mother Teresa.

The stamp — set to be released on Aug. 26, which would have been Mother Teresa's 100th birthday — will recognize the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize winner for her humanitarian work, the Postal Service announced last month.

"Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years," the Postal Service said in a press release. "Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations."

"Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did," Gaylor told FoxNews.com.

Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

"In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith," Betts told FoxNews.com.

Click here to see other controversial U.S. stamps.

Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan's stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion.

Martin Luther King "just happened to be a minister," and "Malcolm X was not principally known for being a religious figure," she said.

"And he's not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa. I mean, even her name is a Roman Catholic honorific."

Gaylor said Mother Teresa infused Catholicism into her secular honors — including an "anti-abortion rant" during her Nobel Prize acceptance speech — and that even her humanitarian work was controversial.

"There was criticism by the end of her life that she turned what was a tiny charity into an extremely wealthy charity that had the means to provide better care than it did," Gaylor said. "...There's this knee jerk response that everything she did was humanitarian, and I think many people would differ that what she was doing was to promote religion, and what she wanted to do was baptize people before they die, and that doesn't have a secular purpose for a stamp."

But the Postal Service said the commemorative stamp has nothing to do with Mother Teresa's religion.

"Mother Teresa is not being honored because of her religion, she's being honored for her work with the poor and her acts of humanitarian relief," Betts told FoxNews.com.

"Her contribution to the world as a humanitarian speaks for itself and is unprecedented," he added.

Some atheists, too, spoke out against the group's objections, including Bruce Sheiman, author of "An Atheist Defends Religion." He said the Freedom from Religion Foundation is being "hypocritical" and really "stepping over the line."

"Clearly there are a number of things that you can point to and say it's religious and a number of things you can point to and say that it's areligious," Sheiman told FoxNews.com. "So it really doesn't make sense to protest it."

He said the Foundation's campaign stems from concern that the abundance of humanitarian work done by believers will overshadow that done by atheists.

"Like billboards and bus ads, this is just part of the whole campaign that they're doing to make non-belief more visible," he said.

Gaylor said the foundation's only concern is the "other things that deserve to be commemorated but are not because the people behind it didn't have the power of the Catholic church."

"It's enormously difficult to get them," she said, referring to commemorative stamps, "and people have huge campaigns, and to me this speaks of the power of the Roman Catholic Church in hierarchy.

"They want to make her a saint and this is part of the PR machine."

The Foundation is encouraging its supporters to purchase the new stamp honoring the late actress Katharine Hepburn, who was an atheist, instead — or any of the other 2010 stamps, which include cartoonist Bill Mauldin, singer Kate Smith, filmmaker Oscar Micheaux, painter Winslow Homer and poet Julia de Burgos.

Betts said that despite the Foundation's accusations and letter-writing campaign, "The response to Mother Teresa has been overwhelmingly in favor of this stamp."

He said the Mother Teresa stamp, like other stamp subjects, will "stand the test of time, reflect the cultural diversity of our nation and have broad national appeal."

The State of His Audacity

Guest Commentary by Edward Cline:

Watching a video the other evening of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address (and later reading the transcript of it), I was struck by two things: the yawn-inducing banality of everything he said, because he has said it all before; and the blatantly collectivist nature of the speech, one barely disguised by its sugary “progressive” coating. Throughout his speech, it was “I am disappointed with the lack of progress by Congress in implementing a socialist agenda, and so we must stop bickering and get things done.”

Or, as Alex Epstein encapsulated the speech in “Obama vs. the First Amendment” on the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights site:

We need to rise above fear, hesitation, and partisan politics–to give the government all the power it needs to solve all our problems.

That is it, in a nutshell. What are “our problems”? Obama waved the usual shopping list of them that required government action and government spending, representing powers not granted to his office or to Congress in the Constitution, and wealth extorted from productive Americans and redirected to subsidize or finance statist ends.

It is only an ugly association with tyranny that his speechwriters did not attempt to paraphrase Adolf Hitler from Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will:

“No one will live in America without working for our country. There is no otherwork.”

And,

“The Democratic Party proclaimed [or was moved by] only two principles: first, it is a Party with a world view; and second, it wanted sole power in America, without compromise.”

The “world view” is that Americans should abandon their individual rights and liberty and defer to their masters in Washington. And the Democratic Party has demonstrated that it wants sole power in America. The Republican Party, on the other hand, has shown that it is willing to compromise its nonexistent principles.

The petulance in Obama’s manner was marked by a quantum of annoyance with an undefined object, a querulous defensiveness in which he blamed failure on everything but his own and his predecessors’ actual policies -- which did not differ fundamentally from his own -- and the subdued menace of a gang leader warning that his minions had better shape up -- or else. One half expected him to pound a fist on the podium. Missing from his delivery was an hysterical stridency.

Nowhere in his speech was his manner more apparent than in his attack on the Supreme Court for upholding the First Amendment rights of corporations to advocate or oppose candidates or political ideas.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.

It is tempting to dwell on the hypocrisy of his words vis-à-vis Obama’s own connections to “special interests,” such as George Soros, numerous other wealthy individuals who contributed to his campaign in 2008, and foreign parties who also contributed to his campaign, all totaling some $800 million. (Thus outspending Republican rival John McCain, who accepted matching federal funds and spent about $10 million; but the subject of the propriety of forcing taxpayers to pay for the election campaigns of candidates for federal office is separate issue). That is aside from the issue of corporations and individuals who stand to benefit from stimulus money and “green” and “clean energy” contracts. The floodgates of inflation, trillion dollar deficits, and spendthrift government spending -- all sanctioned by the administration and Congress -- promise to drown Americans for generations to come.

“Special interests”? “Lobbyists”? Obama pointed out in his speech instances of businesses that have benefited from the Recovery Act. Who decides which applicants for stimulus money will get it? Who qualifies for it, and why? Where there are bureaucrats with money to hand out, and beggars pleading their “need” for it, the scenarios do not bear close scrutiny. All one will find are ACORN-like scandals and corruption.

It is the middle class that will suffer most under Obama’s economic policies, as well as under any health care bill. Someone apparently informed him of this, that it was middle class Americans who formed the bulk of the Tea Parties and defiant town hall meetings last year and made known their strenuous opposition to his socialist policies. His solution is to attempt to bribe them with fictive tax cuts that are surpassed by tax increases and private revenue consuming and destroying regulations, and the granting of pointless tax credits for education and jobs. He urged Congress to pass a health care bill regardless of Americans’ opposition to it. He will have his way -- or else.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."

Democratic lawmakers and Obama Cabinet members, surrounding the six of nine justices who turned out for the event, stood and applauded. The justices, in the front and second rows of the House chamber, sat motionless and expressionless. Except for Alito. "Not true, not true," he appeared to say (other lip readers think he said, "That's not true") as he shook his head and furrowed his brow. It is unclear what part of Obama's statement he was objecting to, although he started shaking his head after the president said "special interests."

Not true? Justice Alito’s words could be interpreted one of two ways: That Obama was wrong about the ruling, that it would unleash a horde of cash-rich ogres to sway voters and elections, and that the president was misinterpreting the thrust of the ruling, and that its conclusion was based on the founding principle of the separation of the economy from state. But the incredulous expression on the justice’s face, together with the shaking of his head, I am certain he was accusing Obama of lying. One wishes that Alito had risen in protest and left the chamber. It would have been a proper punctuation mark to the growl of naked thuggery.

And, he lied in Baltimore during a “debate” between him and Republicans during a televised House conference. Replying to Indiana Representative Mike Pence’s criticisms of the performance of Obama’s economic agenda and Obama’s and Congress‘s dismissal of a Republican plan for tax relief, Obama replied,

I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me, “You could do this cheaper and get increased results,” that I wouldn't say, “Great.” The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made.

Meaning: He did not search for any economists of a non-Marxist ideology who would substantiate Pence’s claims -- not that Pence’s claims had any shred of validity to them, either. Tax relief? Why not propose the abolition of those taxes? It isn’t relief from those taxes that Americans need, but freedom from them.

Obama said Republican lawmakers have attacked his health care overhaul so fiercely, "you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot." His proposals are mainstream, widely supported ideas, he said, and they deserve some GOP votes in Congress. "I am not an ideologue," the president declared.

Yes, he is an unrepentant, dedicated ideologue of the Marxist kind. No amount of televised “give-and-take” joshing with his enemies is ever going to disguise that he is committed to “remaking” America according to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. The rudderless Republicans fall for it every time.

It is symbolically significant, while he thanked the Republicans for inviting him to the “debate,” that he paraphrased a line from the movie, The Godfather: Part II:*

I very much am appreciative of not only the tone of your introduction, John, but also the invitation that you extended to me. You know what they say, ”Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every few months.” (Laughter.)

It is no laughing matter. This is the “gangster-government” way. However, it is factually significant that he also made this observation, one of his few honest, truthful ones:

I know many of you individually. And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it’s represented.

Beneath the excelsior of badinage with his alleged enemies, one finds a kernel of truth. That is something Americans can believe in.

*Attributed to Sun-Tzu, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Petrarch, but made famous in Francis Ford Coppola’s gangster movie.

Climategate: Al Gore and the politicization of science

Roger Simon has been excellent on Climategate lately. I'm guessing this is because he tended to be more of a believer in it in the first place. As a former believer (somewhat) he probably feels more betrayed than someone like myself, who lost belief in Apocalyptic Chicken Little Science as I was growing up. (Click here to read my take on Chicken Little Science.)

One of the most disturbing outgrowths of the global warming controversy over the last twenty or so years has been the increased politicization of science. Of course, this is far from the first time this has occurred, but it may be one of the most important, because we are at a particularly fragile moment in the global economy. Indeed, had it not been for the release of the Climategate emails and documents in November, the recent Copenhagen conference might have succeeded in reallocating billions, even trillions, of dollars, possibly leading to a form of global bankruptcy. Less than two months later, with the so-called science now unravelingonanalmostdailybasis, the whole thing seems close to insane. How could we have done it?

Well, how could we have done it?

Okay, I’ll take a pass at that – with the caveat that this is a very early narrative of a story that many will tell and examine in the future, undoubtedly in book form. In fact, it deserves several books.

But let’s start with the obvious. Most of us love Mother Earth. It’s a beautiful planet to live on with many extraordinary places and creatures “in’t.” Most of us want to preserve it. And for decades we have been trying to do so – liberals and conservatives in sometimes different ways – via governmental and non-governmental means. To greater or lesser degrees, some of these means worked – or at least improved things. Anyone who lives in Los Angeles, as I do, knows the benefits of air quality legislation. You can actually see the hills and your eyes don’t tear, as they once did, when you walk into the back yard.

As we know, while these things were going on, organizations were growing and forming in protection of the Earth, or what was perceived to be the protection of the Earth. Many of these groups would phone us or go door-to-door asking for money, which many of us, I among them, gave. We were all good servants of Gaia. No matter what our religion – or lack thereof – it was the right thing. The Earth was in jeopardy. We had to defend it.

And these organizations continued growing. Being “green” became the normative behavior, in practically every aspect of our existence, from the school to the supermarket. We lived in a “recycling world.” (Yes, I know there were many environmental errors and misidentifications of endangered species, etc., but mistakes are the way of the world. Let’s pass over that for the moment.) Environmentalism had become for many a replacement religion rather than the simple common sense that it is.

Enter Al Gore. Recently having lost a highly-disputed election for the most important position in the world, he was ripe for a cause and became influenced by a small group of scientists who had deep and sincere beliefs in an impending catastrophe from CO2 caused Anthropogenic Global Warming.

The most prominent of these scientists is James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who is said to have a general dislike for industrial civilization and what it has wrought. Whether this is true or not or whether Gore knew it, I don’t know, but it doesn’t appear to have mattered. Gore – who had no scientific training and indeed had an exceptionally poor academic record in general – seized upon the information proferred by Hansen and the others, not questioning them, as far we know, for a second. (As you will see from this link, many, including director superiors, are questioning Hansen now.)

“The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.“

Sid Garcia(KABC) — A diverse group of Antelope Valley religious and political leaders are asking for Lancaster City Councilwoman Sherry Marquez, to apologize for what she wrote on her Facebook page about Muslims.

“Why this is of such great concern is that it isn’t something that was said to somebody or was overheard on an open microphone. It is because it went on the World Wide Web,” said Valerie Elliott of the Antelope Valley Interfaith Council.

A portion of what Marquez wrote on her Facebook page after reading a story about a Buffalo New York man accused of beheading his wife reads, “This is what the Muslim religion is all about. The beheadings, honor killings are just the beginning of what is to come in the U.S.A. We are told this is a small majority of Muslims in America, but it is truly what they are all about.”

“We need her apology to come from the heart, and that comes with education,” said Kamal Al-Khatib of the American Islamic Institute of A.V.

Hey, Kamal al-Khatib, FUCK YOU!

There ought be no apology here, because, from all the evidence, what she says is the absolute truth.

And, in fact, part of the evidence is that we don't see people like Kamal al-Khatib speaking out against Jihadism, nor do we see them speaking out against Islam's call to kill gays, apostates, and adulterers, or against Islam's granting women only second-class status.

Instead, all people like Kamal al-Khatib will speak out against is Infidels who tell the truth about Islam.

If you want us to stop saying such things about Islam, then Muslims need to organize themselves into large groups and make unequivocal public statements against the above Islamic atrocities.

But, Muslims do not do this. Instead, organizations like CAIR, the Muslim American Committee, and the Islamic Society of North America, actually support Sharia, never condemning it's abuses.

We are only left to think that that is the true voice of the Muslim community.

So, like I said, FUCK YOU!

people to take a moment to write the city council communication's director in support of this City Council woman.

Midnight Rider butting in (because I already had this written when I saw Pasto's post)

Brave Enough to Speak the Truth And of course get hammered for it.

What Sherry Marquez said is no different than what we say here a thousand times a day.

If the Muslim Community REALLY want to disavow the less attractive aspects of their cult then they need to stand up and openly disavow all those who practice it. After they've started talking about the Threat of Jihad the free world faces, after they've started talking about SHaria and Honor Killings and openly proclaimed not just that Islam doesn't preach that, but actively work to end it, then MAYBE we can start talking about how we Infidels see it. But not until then.

Clean up their own fucking house first before complaining to the homeowners association about ours.

Marquez exercised her First Amendment. The comments are not racist because, of course, Islam is not a race. She deserves support.

Obama Organizing In Public Schools

An Atlas reader, Chuck, has a student in the eleventh grade in an Ohio High School. Her government class passed out this propaganda recruiting paper so students could sign up as interns for Obama's Organizing for America (OFA is the former mybarackobama.com site.)

Obama is using our public school system to recruit for his Alinsky-inspired private army. Organizing for America is (and I quote) recruiting in our high schools to "build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda" ............of national socialism.

This is incredible. And evil. Suffer the little children -- enlisted like SS youth. This is no accident. Obama is poisoning our public school system. He acts as if it's his own private breeding farm. Once again academic learning and achievement is hopelessly abandoned, and supplanted by radical leftist activism from the leftwing Alinsky indoctrinators in the perversepublic school system.

Children must be advised to expose this ugly propaganda. Children must tell their parents how they are being used and manipulated. Parents, warn your kids. Better yet, home school.

Check out the recommended reading list page 4:

Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky

The New Organizers, Zack Exley

Stir It Up: Lessons from Community Organizing and Advocacy, Rinku Sen

Obama Field Organizers Plot a Miracle, Zack Exley, Huffington Post

Dreams of My FatherChicago Chapters, Barack Hussein Obama

This internship program is geared towards the 2010 elections. Using our kids as their goons. Can you imagine if the Republicans attempted such a fascist stunt?

Haiti, Culturism, and the Basis of Rights

In a prior post, I used the moving of Sheik Khalid Mohammed’s trial from downtown NYC to illustrate some culturist principles. That rights come from cultures that can afford them and believe in them was my main point. Mohammed’s right to have a trial will disrupt the lives of whomever it comes near and will cost lots of money. Like rights, as many know and only some suspect, money is not metaphysical. We cannot just print more and have it hold value. The 200 million a year we spend assuring Mohammed gets his rights must come at the expense of services many American’s also assume they have a right to.

In comments, some serious objections to this foundational culturist philosophical tenet were raised. One set of comments claimed, “Rights that are the result of cost/risk-benefit are not rights at all. They are mere luxuries. We have our rights, which do exist a priori even to many Atheists, because we fought for them.” Another commentator found our rights existed in our “potential to rise up and throw off our oppressors.” While insisting that we had a choice as to how many rights to give Mohammed, both correspondents worried that a lack of grounding in “potential” or “God” laid us dangerously close to moral relativism and a Nietzschean will to power model.

Haiti’s recent disastrous earthquake shows that rights do not exist independently of man’s belief and ability to afford them. As of the morning of January 31st, 2010 America has suspended evacuating critically injured Haitians to the US for care. Our issue? Cost. Florida’s health care system was reported to be, “quickly reaching saturation” and was “already under strain because of the winter influx of elderly people.” Even if those Haitians doomed to die think that God has given them the right to live, they will find out that that right has very little importance here on the earth.(1)

Secondly, the title of the article that announces our suspending the airlifts reads, “Haiti patients ‘will die’ because of US airlift halt.” Proximity is a factor, but I do not believe it is the reason the whole of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the US. China and Saudi Arabia simply do not care about people outside of their realm. They believe in their people’s rights, not human rights. Yet, ironically, we get the blame for not helping!! Again, rights, - and in this case the most basic right there is, the right to have your life saved - only come from nations that believe in them. Rights do not come universal precepts.

To protect rights we must make sure the West is solvent. If we can afford to save Haitians and give terrorist rights, that is groovy. But, ultimately, our duty is to keep our nation alive so that our vision of rights can survive. Outside of the West, there is no sustained, solvent tradition of rights. If the West falls, the right to be rescued, let alone vote, will die. Ask yourself which nation will bring them to us? In a meaningless and abstract way the “right” to a full trial and be airlifted to a hospital may continue. But, I do not see Saudi Arabia granting you either. Rights only come from nations, like ours, that believe in them. If we do not appreciate right’s geo-political basis we will likely fail to adequately appreciate the need to protect our interests.

Does that throw us open to cultural relativism? NO! Just as China and Saudi Arabia believe in and protect their way of life and beliefs for their people, we must do the same for our people. Our values meant that we cannot just start to silence or kill people here or abroad without qualms. We have a very firm domestic tradition of rights, democracy, and freedom of speech that would make such abuses appear starkly wrong to us. Socrates and Jefferson would call us traitors to our ancestors if we were needlessly violent or dismissive of rights. Christ would haunt us if we did not respect the individual. But, we must be clear that other nations celebrate conquest, submission, and enslavement. Rather than cultural relativists, recognizing that rights are only western and dependent on our solvency makes us more appreciative of their fragility and the need to realistically protect them.

(The Hill)- Amid fears that the White House may move the terrorist trials connected with September 11, 2001, to the Washington, D.C., region, GOP lawmakers are planning to introduce legislation that would bar the use federal funds for their prosecution in any U.S. civilian court.

The move comes as the White House, met with growing opposition, has reportedly begun considering alternative locations to the originally planned federal district court in downtown Manhattan to try the professed 9/11 “mastermind” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants.

The legislation expected to be introduced early next week is sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), whose district borders Washington, D.C., and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and would prohibit funding for any Justice Department prosecution in civilian courts of a person being tried in connection with the 9/11 attacks

Our Rude, Boorish and Totally Narcissistic President

completely missed a shout out at the SOTU (yeah, I really DID watch it -- actually he missed a few). Shocking since he didn't miss the shout outs directly before addressing the Fort Hood terrorist attack back in November.

Standing next to The First Lady's right (picture left) another real hero. Officer Kimberly Munley, who first shot Hassan. And next to her, the man who fired the shots that felled him, Sergeant Mark Alan Todd, now Fort Hood Acting Police Chief.

From Creeping Sharia (click on the title above to see the whole thing):

W.T.F. If true, why is a U.S. federal judge meeting with a PakistaniAmbassador regarding an ongoing trial? Why are they having any private meetings at all? What was discussed? From the Ibrahim Sajid Malick Blog.

Federal Judge, Richard Berman, has also ruled on the side of the prosecution in nearly every motion. One of the most surprising, say legal experts, is when he allowed statements that Dr. Siddiqui made while at a hospital in Bagram to be used against her although she had not been “Mirandized” This refers to the Miranda Laws that direct law enforcement officials to identify themselves to an arrested individual and to advise that individual of their rights, including the right an attorney.

This ruling came a day after Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani, had a private meeting with Judge Richard Berman, which he described as “positive”.

The lone comment at the blog suggests doing exactly what Siddiqui is accused of, killing Americans.

Posted on January 30, 2010 by creeping

W.T.F. If true, why is a U.S. federal judge meeting with a Pakistani Ambassador regarding an ongoing trial? Why are they having any private meetings at all? What was discussed? From the Ibrahim Sajid Malick Blog.

Federal Judge, Richard Berman, has also ruled on the side of the prosecution in nearly every motion. One of the most surprising, say legal experts, is when he allowed statements that Dr. Siddiqui made while at a hospital in Bagram to be used against her although she had not been “Mirandized” This refers to the Miranda Laws that direct law enforcement officials to identify themselves to an arrested individual and to advise that individual of their rights, including the right an attorney.

This ruling came a day after Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani, had a private meeting with Judge Richard Berman, which he described as “positive”.

The lone comment at the blog suggests doing exactly what Siddiqui is accused of, killing Americans.

Walid Shoebat's $15,000 Challenge To A Dhimmified Apologist For Islam

It is blatantly wrong “to equate all of the Muslim religion to evil.” To say that is “tantamount to a former Baptist going to Saudi Arabia and equating all Baptists with abortion-doctor killers.”

So says Mr. J. Todd Foster, the managing editor of the Bristol Herald Courier, in a Nov. 8, 2009, article against me.

Can one even rightfully compare Evangelicals or Catholics to Muslims?

Here is my challenge to Foster: I am willing to go to the largest mass at the Vatican in Rome dressed up in Muslim garb with a Koran in hand if Foster agrees to go to the Hajj in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, with a visible cross around his neck. If Foster turns up unscathed I will pay him the sum of $15,000, apologize and repent publicly from saying anything against Islam or Muslims.

Hero Tony Blair stood trial today in Great Britain over his brave decision to send troops to Iraq to free the people from the mass murderer Saddam Hussein. Blair made the decision back in 2003. Since then the US and allies have secured the nation and won the war thanks to the leadership of George W. Bush.150 moonbat protesters gathered outside with their astroturfed signs. (Reuters)

The trial was set up to humiliate Former Prime Minister Tony Blair for his decision to bring freedom to the persecuted Iraqis and stability to the Middle East. Blair stood his ground saying he would make the same decision today as he did back in 2003. He also took a couple of swipes at the current weak leadership in Washington and the UK.The Daily Mail reported:

Mr Blair insisted: ‘This isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It’s a decision.

‘And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given ten years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?

‘The decision I took – and frankly would take again – was if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction we should stop him.’

…He warned that Iran’s nuclear weapons programme now poses an even greater threat.

And, in an apparent rebuke to Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, suggested that if he was still in power he would be championing military action.

Godspeed, Tony Blair.Thank you for being a friend to America, a friend to the Iraqis and a champion of freedom.

Pelosi Is A Dumb Bitch - Oh Yeah, And She's a Liar Too

Nancy Pelosi Stopped One Useful CIA Operation in 2004. So, Um, If Waterboarding Was So Bad, How Come She Couldn't Stop That?

In mid-2004, then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi learned something from a CIA briefing that made her blood boil. Pelosi reportedly "came unglued" at the revelation and had "strong words" with national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, demanding that the CIA abandon its plans. As a result, a top-secret finding that President George W. Bush signed to authorize the CIA's activities was revised. Pelosi succeeded in stopping the agency from moving forward with the controversial operation.

What drove Pelosi to action? Not the CIA's waterboarding of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists. In a 2009 interview, a former senior Bush administration official directed me to a little-noticed item from Time magazine. According to this 2004 report, Pelosi objected to a CIA plan to provide money to moderate political parties in Iraq ahead of scheduled elections, in an effort to counter Iran, which was funneling millions to extremist elements.

Why is this important? Because on May 14, 2009, Pelosi, now speaker of the House, declared in a Capitol Hill news conference that she had opposed CIA waterboarding but was powerless to stop it.

Ace concludes:

That move -- stopping the funding of moderate parties -- seemed to have no other point than to try to sabotage the entire war effort.

A Christian Jihadist

Alcoa pastor's son accuses him of pulling gun during argument at church

Colquitt reportedly told officers that his father — Joe Colquitt, 60, Evergreen Farms Lane, Greenback — called him to St. John Missionary Baptist Church, 178 Bessie Harvey Ave., Alcoa, “so they could talk.” Joe Colquitt was listed in the Alcoa report as being pastor at the church.

Once Michael Colquitt arrived to meet his father, he said Joe Colquitt was upset because he wasn't attending church like he should, and at some point alleged the argument came to a head with the pastor pulling out a handgun.

“(Michael) Colquitt stated (Joe) Colquitt pulled out a handgun and stated he would kill him, his wife and family,” the report said. “(Michael) Colquitt stated (his father) was upset because he cussed him.”

The father says he didn't really threaten to kill his son's family. Instead, God did.

ON A WARM, cloudy day in the fall of 1999, the town of Daphne, Ala., stirred to life. The high-school band came pounding down Main Street, past the post office and the library and Christ the King Church. Trumpeters in gold-tasseled coats tipped their horns to the sky, heralding the arrival of teenage demigods. The star quarterback and his teammates came first in the parade, followed by the homecoming queen and her court. Behind them, on a float bearing leaders of the student government, a giddy mop-haired kid tossed candy to the crowd.

Omar Hammami had every right to flash his magnetic smile. He had just been elected president of his sophomore class. He was dating a luminous blonde, one of the most sought-after girls in school. He was a star in the gifted-student program, with visions of becoming a surgeon. For a 15-year-old, he had remarkable charisma.

Despite the name he acquired from his father, an immigrant from Syria, Hammami was every bit as Alabaman as his mother, a warm, plain-spoken woman who sprinkles her conversation with blandishments like “sugar” and “darlin’.” Brought up a Southern Baptist, Omar went to Bible camp as a boy and sang “Away in a Manger” on Christmas Eve. As a teenager, his passions veered between Shakespeare and Kurt Cobain, soccer and Nintendo. In the thick of his adolescence, he was fearless, raucously funny, rebellious, contrarian. “It felt cool just to be with him,” his best friend at the time, Trey Gunter, said recently. “You knew he was going to be a leader.”

A decade later, Hammami has fulfilled that promise in the most unimaginable way. Some 8,500 miles from Alabama, on the eastern edge of Africa, he has become a key figure in one of the world’s most ruthless Islamist insurgencies. That guerrilla army, known as the Shabab, is fighting to overthrow the fragile American-backed Somali government. The rebels are known for beheading political enemies, chopping off the hands of thieves and stoning women accused of adultery. With help from Al Qaeda, they have managed to turn Somalia into an ever more popular destination for jihadis from around the world.

BEIJING — A China Southern Airlines flight had to turn around Saturday, returning to the capital of China's restive Xinjiang region after a passenger burned toilet paper in the washroom, state media reported.

The crew of the flight from Urumqi, in the west, to the central city of Wuhan, discovered the passenger's actions after take-off, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

Police said a man and a woman were arrested after the flight landed, according to Xinhua.

The case is under investigation, the report said, giving no further details.

The security situation is more tense in Xinjiang than other parts of China because Beijing says it faces a serious separatist threat in the region.

Exiled members of the region's Muslim Uighur majority say Beijing exaggerates the threat to justify harsh controls in the region, which is rich in energy reserves and borders several central Asian countries.

Earlier this year, authorities also issued orders to step up identity checks and monitor religious activities in Xinjiang in a renewed bid to quash terrorism, separatism and extremism, state media reported.

And, of course, China is wiser than us, when it comes to handling terrorists. We give KSM the rights of an American and a "fair" trial in front of a "jury of his peers" in Manhattan. China? They don't take no shit:

China must account for the whereabouts of ethnic Uighurs forcibly repatriated from Cambodia, a US-based rights group has said.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said such groups had "disappeared into a black hole" on their return to China.

The Uighurs fled to Cambodia after mass ethnic riots in China in July. Beijing has referred to them as criminals.

In December, a group of 20 Uighurs were put on a plane to China despite opposition from the UN and US.

They said the group were likely to face persecution in China.

"Uighur asylum seekers sent back to China by Cambodia have disappeared into a black hole," said Sophie Richardson of HRW.

"There is no information about their whereabouts, no notification of any legal charges against them, and there are no guarantees they are safe from torture and ill-treatment."

The laments of the center-left, or 'the discrete charm of the bourgoisee'

In 1972 we heard of Richard Nixon, 'I don't know how he got elected, I don't know a single person who voted for him'. Nixon was certainly an execrable president, but there is no argument his opponent in 1972 could not have figured out a way to get less votes if he had tried.

And now, amid the post Katrina-like denouement after Scott Brown's ascent, what do we hear?

The president simply couldn't seem to escape his professorial past, to convey his passion and convictions in the plain words of plain folks, and to breach the chasm between the People's House and people's houses.

As I was saying, last November, the Justice Department announced that the terror trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would be held in Manhattan. Almost everyone in New York rallied around. This was seen as standing up to terrorism.

In case he wasn't fully aware that Republicans are impervious to his political charm, President Obama saw it early in his first State of the Union address. After ticking off a list of taxes he'd lowered, the chamber was in cheers -- except for the GOP side of the aisle, where traditionally tax-cutters have clustered. Obama smiled and ad-libbed, "I expected some applause for that one."

These confused, unrealistic pleading sort of whines are very informative.

They do NOT comprehend WHAT IT IS the tea party people are so totally dedicated about, except foggy comprehension of anger and snarling, most of which does not really redound to their own benefit, anyway.

They believe if Obama merely explains himself better, all will be well.

They really believe the republicans have done nothing but say no, offered no plans of their own, and that the people believe that as they do

They believe FOREIGN enemies of the United States, anywhere on the planet, and our way of life deserve all the benefits of Americans in court when captured in the act of slaughtering Americans, and that the world will celebrate this attitude and all will be better.

Is it any wonder they do not really understand what is going on around them?

They are called priorities for a reason...

No matter who you are, and no matter what your organization, only so many things of importance can be tackled, and in the right order....

Obama administration may take action on College Bowl System

The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review

the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.

In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch's request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.

"Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason," Weich wrote, including asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the legality of the BCS under consumer protection laws.

Suppose Hizballah, Hassan Nasrallah, and the Mullahs of Iran understand the American People far better than we think?

More airport security won't do much to stop terrorists. Leaving the Middle East would.

Ending US interference, including military support for Israel, could significantly reduce the rationale for terrorist acts.

Earlier this week, Osama bin Laden praised the Christmas Day attack in which a Nigerian-born man living in London attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound airplane by igniting explosives in his underwear.

Mr. bin Laden's endorsement, along with recent attacks in Baghdad, raise concerns about a new round of attacks against the United States. Politicians, security experts, and pundits have therefore called for heightened security measures at airports and on airplanes.

It won't work without addressing why there are attacks to begin with.

Additional security measures may prevent a few attacks, at least until terrorists learn to circumvent the new policies. But these measures will have little lasting impact, as with many past tactics, because they do nothing to reduce the demand for terrorism against the US.

If the desire to engage in a certain activity is not reduced, attempts to raise the costs (such as harsher punishment) of such an activity do not matter much.

FOR STARTERS... today one could argue quite effectively that a plurality (at a minimum) of Muslims agree that all conquests cultural, by peoples, movements, and finally and most importantly, religiously MUST go forward as prescribed, in the way of Allah, by other means. The ultimate goal is that the call to prayer be heard everywhere, and that all means of dawa succeed. This has NOTHING to do with where investor's decide it's a good idea to put McDonald's, or if a young lady's desire to BE DESIRED is expressed in a tight pair of Levis. What WE do, how WE act can never be more than an IRRITANT in their motion.

Nasrallah's dream, and the Iranians' confidence comes from their faith that god will make americans weak, not in the field, but by coming up with rational men whose aversion to all risk will end our ability to survive and thrive ANYWHERE, placing us in retrograde motion, EVERYWHERE.

In this world the first rule of survival is this: If you are not growing you are shrinking. That is true personally, in business, and as a nation. The idea of a plateau is an invention of a shrinking society's risk averse cowards to justify the act of doing nothing while they shrink, and pass less onto their descendants.

Less in their way of life.Less in their freedom of action.Less in their economic dreams.Less in THEIR own dreams for THEIR own children.Less, finally, of their own freedoms.

Sheik Khalid Mohammed, Rights, and the Terrorist Aftershock

Culturism does not hold that rights are – with apologies to the great Thomas Jefferson - inalienable or God-given. They do not hang in the sky enshrined by metaphysical truths as “human rights” advocated contend. Rights come from cultures that believe in them and can afford them. Enshrining rights in mystical ether and ignoring their real-world basis and costs endangers our nation.

Today the White House abandoned their plan to have Sheik Khalid Mohammed, the admitted 9-11 mastermind, tried in lower Manhattan. The decision was done on the basis of considerations that show rights are not metaphysical abstractions. Trying Mohammed requires creating a security perimeter. This would have meant locals would have had to have shown identification to get to their homes, traffic would have been terrible, and businesses would have been virtually inaccessible. Rights happen in real times and places.

Mohammed’s right to be tried in Manhattan would have come at the cost of others’ right to stay in business. The trial will cost, according to New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelley, around $200 million a year and last for several years. The Federal government may reimburse for some of the costs. But whoever supplies the dimes, we can see in times of financial stress and hiring freezes, Mohammed’s rights happen at the expense of others’ rights to get fire service, police protection, or teachers. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Rights cost money.

Rights happen in a spectrum that, in our history, could be said to run from lynching to Sheik Khalid Mohammed. Lynching could not have been called a form of justice when the wrong person was caught. But, for arguments sake, on that occasion when the person lynched was guilty, the justice was swift. Such deterrent and retribution required zero lawyers, delay, or cost. In the middle of our spectrum of justice, we have cases where guilt is in doubt and we have a trial. And, at the other extreme, we have a clearly guilty man getting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of protections. The extremes are clearly problematic.

During times of war, even America has had a culturist, rather than an absolute metaphysical, vision of rights. We did not, for example, both have the resources to give every person of Japanese descent a trial before relocation and fight World War Two. Nations have long interned enemy combatants, or potential enemy combatants, en masse for just such reasons. We knew that had we lost World War II, no one would have rights. We understood that rights do not exist in a vacuum; they cost money, take time, and require a culture that believes in them for them to be in existence.

It is unprecedented that we now, in debt and at war, spend hundreds of millions to protect a man clearly guilty of killing thousands of Americans. Obama believed that the cost was worth the international propaganda value of the trial. This change of location shows that he only secondarily realized the disruption caused by the trial will have a domestic political costs. It will also have the domestic impact of disrupting businesses and costing us each lots of money. In a time of War this chaos and economic bleeding could be considered a second terrorist hit. Until we realize that rights cost money and require a sustainable functioning society to buy them, we are vulnerable to such aftershock terrorism.

The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane — that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration — but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government.

After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.

We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).

The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama’s own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration’s new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

Perhaps you hadn’t heard the term. Well, in the very first week of his presidency, Obama abolished by executive order the Bush-Cheney interrogation procedures and pledged to study a substitute mechanism. In August, the administration announced the establishment of the HIG, housed in the FBI but overseen by the National Security Council.

Where was it during the Abdulmutallab case? Not available, admitted National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, because it had been conceived for use only abroad. Had not one person in this vast administration of highly nuanced sophisticates considered the possibility of a terror attack on American soil?

The Parallel Government
Of The Entire World

All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.

The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics

Infidel Babe Of The Week
Moran Atias - TYRANT

IBA Quote of the Week.

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an "equalizer." Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed — but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny."

"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field," explained Ayatollah Khomeini. "There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

****************

"I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't."~~~~~Bono~~~~~